Catholic vs Protestant Spirituality: Lets compare faith walks

  • Thread starter Thread starter Michael16
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael16 said:
I see in my niece’s ELCA community that there’s folks saying stuff like: “ Well, I think this is what Jesus really meant… “ which really amounts to them using Scripture to justify what they want to do anyway, and I’m thinking of the “ justification “ for women clergy, gay ministers, gay “ marriages “ and abortions when I say this; does that anger you guys who seriously take what Our Lord taught?
Click to expand...
Definitely. They have a different take on scripture which is an aberration from Sola Scriptura. They confess that scripture “contains” the word of God, not that scripture “is” the word of God. This has allowed them over the years to essentially pick and choose what they accept as binding upon the faith and what they can toss away. It has made a complete mess of their theology and practice. As a result, the confessional Lutheran bodies are no longer in fellowship with the ELCA. This is one of the reasons why confessional Lutherans are so adamant about adhering to Sola Scriptura. We believe it to be the guiderail that keeps our confessions sound. We have much more in common with the Roman Catholic community in this regard than we do with the ELCA, which is essentially an apostate body at this point (this does not speak to all congregations, there are many faithful congregations, but the ecclesial body as a whole is not faithful).

The Church has been faithful on many issues but I would not rest on my laurels and assume that will always be true on matters of faith and morals. I keep my eyes on Roman Catholic news articles and news sites, and just as every other ecclesial body is struggling with liberal views of Christianity, so is Rome. I could probably do some Catholic news searches and find things that would greatly worry you, it worries me as well because our ultimate goal is one Church body united in doctrine. The Catholic education system at the university level is especially concerning. We have a saying, when Rome sneezes Wittenburg catches a cold. There is a lot of truth to this.
 
Last edited:
🤔

What disturbs me is what you said about them “ confessing “ that Scripture “ contains “ the Word, but “ isn’t “ the Word.

As for the Church, despite some disturbing things I hear from “ spirit of Vatican II “ types and even some priests supporting the LGBT agenda; I’m confident we’ll stand firm.

After all, what I hear in the Church and on EWTN reassures me that the Church will not go the way of liberal Christianity.

I’m interested to know what you find concerning in the Catholic university system.
 
That and also: What do you mean by When Rome sneezes, Wittenberg catches a cold?
 
@Hodos is totally abrasive. He’s like the steel wool of CAF.

Having said that, the charitability quotient on this thread is making me…uncomfortable. All these Catholics and Protestants being nice to each other is very…Christian.

Me thinks our friend Screwtape is having a conniption right now 🙂
 
Michael16 said:
What disturbs me is what you said about them “ confessing “ that Scripture “ contains “ the Word, but “ isn’t “ the Word.

As for the Church, despite some disturbing things I hear from “ spirit of Vatican II “ types and even some priests supporting the LGBT agenda; I’m confident we’ll stand firm.
Click to expand...
Well, I won’t get into very many specifics. I have read numerous articles where Rome is caving on the LGBT agenda, particularly in her university systems. This is a problem because it is from these systems that the priesthood is formed. The revelations about Cardinal McCarrick are hopefully a wake up call to that. Some of the things Pope Francis has said publicly also greatly concern me, and there are a number of Catholic apologists who would probably agree, if not publicly. The change to the catechism about the impermissibility of the death penalty is concerning to me because it shows a break with sacred scripture. Also, don’t know if you saw that one incident where he was speaking to a boy about the possibility of his atheist father going to heaven. That was concerning. I understand the pastoral concern that Pope Francis had there, but that was handled poorly I think and it speaks to whether the Church is flirting with universalism. Maybe these things don’t concern you, but I know there is a vocal conservative wing of the Catholic Church that is concerned by these things.

With regard to the saying, we hold a lot of similar positions on things. And because Rome is the largest ecclesial body on earth, when they start to waiver or struggle with doctrine or practice, there is a noticeable affect on the Christian community as a whole. My hope is that Rome does remain faithful, but I never want to just make the assumption. Every generation is responsible for maintaining Christian orthodoxy. We can’t just take that for granted. Each of us is part of the story of how the gospel was spread to the ends of the earth. We need to see ourselves in that narrative.
 
Last edited:
🤔 Of course, as a conservative Catholic; I’m concerned when I see “ progressives “ and their fellow travelers at work in the Church.

However, I trust in the Holy Father and the Magisterium and that they will be rightly guided by the Holy Spirit and rein them in.

If you’re talking about the sex abuse scandals, the Church says she’s cleaning house and that’s good enough for me.

As for the Holy Father, I like him. His pontificate is basically about God’s Mercy, the poor and ecumenism. My understanding of ecumenism is the finding of common ground and mutual understanding. I have a copy of his book, The Name of God is Mercy. I’ll have to read it. I’m told it contains the basis for his pontifical ministry.

As for the universalism flirtation thing you mentioned; the Church isn’t doing that. We stand firm that we’re the Church Christ instituted on Earth and thus we possess the fullness of the Faith. For the ecumenism of the 21st century Church, I think you’d have to look back to Vatican II.

Prior to that, as you probably know; the Church taught that there was zero salvation outside of the Church. One of the changes that came in via Vatican II was that the Church now teaches that there is the possibility that any earnest and sincere person of good conscience, even an atheist; could receive salvation; were he in ignorance of the fullness of the Faith possessed by the Church.

The Church teaches that Protestants are our separated brothers and sisters in Christ, possessing some of the Faith; albeit with an admixture of errors. God willing and I earnestly hope; you guys will receive salvation.

Another of the changes was the call for social outreach and ecumenism. Essentially, the Church reoriented to extend out a more inclusive and understanding hand than in the previous centuries because of the hard stance we had to take in response to the, no offense intended; “ reformation “.

If it wasn’t for Vatican II; you and I wouldn’t be having this beautiful conversation that I hope will continue. If not for Vatican II, we’d still be fighting the Thirty Years’ War; ecclesially speaking.

As a faithful son of the Church, I answer the ecumenical call and I’d like to serve God and His Church in strengthening understanding and ties amongst Christians against the paganization of Western culture. I really believe we’re in a war against the devil in this.

As the Jesuits say: For the greater glory of God!

As for the death penalty: In my pre Catholic days, I was very much for the death penalty. However: As a faithful Catholic, if the Church teaches it’s against the Gospel; then I defer and submit.

I appreciate your concern for the Church and the unity of Christ’s Body and I hope that together we can form alliances and find common ground between us in our combat against the paganization of our society.

I’m sorry if I’m sounding pompous or hurtful. It’s not my intention. Just trying to charitably state my ecumenical basis for a fellow brother in Christ.
 
Last edited:
Nope, you’re fine. We have some divergent opinions there, but I know where you are coming from.
 
Cool. I’m very relieved to hear it. Where would you like to go from here, Hodos?
 
I’ve got nothing at the moment relevant to the original question being posed. As we spoke about by email, there are a lot of practices we share and agree on, and a few that we would disagree on or at least might have varying degrees of discomfort in practicing in our spiritual disciplines. I think the big thing to ask always is this, is this point me to Christ, or is it obscuring Christ. I think that is generally where disagreements about practices lie when Protestants and Catholics discuss such issues. The other temptation, particularly from the Protestant side, is the tendency to toss the baby out with the bath water so to speak. The reformation had three major streams of varying degrees of change. The Anabaptists were very radical, the Reformed group less so, and the Lutherans much more conservative. I can usually see both sides of the issues when they are presented even if I come down on a definite side on a particular issue.
 
Cool.

As I was mowing my father’s lawn, another thing popped into my mind.

It’s a question of Luther’s Marian piety. From what I’ve read, Luther retained piety toward Our Lady as the Mother of God and that Lutheran liturgies included Marian hymns. According to my sources, later Lutheran theologians removed this Marian piety as being too Catholic.

Is this true?
 
As for the Protestant movements of the 16th century, I do understand that Calvin and the Anabaptists were never included in Luther’s movement.

The Reformed strain bothers me with Calvin’s predestination and the insistence that the Eucharist is merely symbolic.

If I’m understanding you and the other Lutherans right, Luther taught Real Presence.

I honestly have no clue what the Anabaptists taught.

All I know is that, in the 16th century; Lutherans and Calvinists fought the Anabaptists as vociferously as they did against Catholics.
 
Michael16 said:
I’m sorry, Reb. I don’t understand.
Click to expand...
Calvin taught that the Eucharist was spiritual food. He didn’t teach that we eat the Body and Blood of Christ, but that it’s a spiritual feast in the presence of Christ.

I never said it made sense, but it’s not the merely symbolic view.
 
🤔 Wow. I used to work with a Presbyterian. Good guy and a wise friend. We disagreed of course but we respected each other’s positions.
 
Michael16 said:
rom what I’ve read, Luther retained piety toward Our Lady as the Mother of God and that Lutheran liturgies included Marian hymns.
Click to expand...
Luther certainly always maintained a very high reverence for Mary. I haven’t looked into his views on this extensively (to see how much they evolved over his lifetime) because I don’t think there is much need to do so, but I see no reason to believe that he did not retain much of the Marian devotion he had as a Roman Catholic. Afterall, he always considered himself a faithful Catholic till his death. That being said, the Augsburg Confession does take an important stance on what is considered proper veneration of the saints, to include Mary, and I think the later confessions confirm and cement that. We would disagree on what is properly called veneration and what might go beyond what is scriptural. That being said, Lutherans maintain a very high view of Mary and we acknowledge Marian dogmas such as Mary as Theotakos and Mary as Mother of God that point to Christ’s dual nature as fully divine and fully man. We would stop short at some of the Marian dogmas because we feel they go too far and actually do disservice to our Christology (at least in my opinion). I am not a big fan of the late medieval Mariology that develops from people such as Bernard of Clairveaux and Louis De Montfort, and even some of the writings of JPII. To me these get to be very troublesome.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top